Appeal No. 96-2722
Application 08/281,168
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied references, appellants’ admitted prior art, and the
respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we are in
general agreement with the examiner (first Office action, pages 2 to 4) that the combination of the
admitted prior art of at least Figures 10 and 12, Gray & Meyer, and Bennett would have fairly
suggested the invention of claims 1 to 12 and 26 to 35 on appeal. However, because we agree with
appellant (Brief, page 14; Reply Brief, pages 6 to 7) that the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest
the recited inverter, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 13 to 25 and 36 to 53 on appeal. For the
reasons which follow, we will sustain the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 12 and 26 to 35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we will reverse the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 13 to 25 and
36 to 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of Claims 1 to 12 and 26 to 35 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1 to 12 and 26 to 35 under § 103, we find that claims 1
to 12 and 26 to 35 on appeal would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007